Its Not The Keystone Pipeline, Its Now 'Obama's' Pipeline

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


When he approves it on his watch, it will be his legacy.
That was the premise of the OP based on the numerous sources.




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


When he approves it on his watch, it will be his legacy.


This is correct, however who's fault is it if the Southern portion of the keystone pipeline goes ahead and turns out to have a negative impact? Is it just Obama's fault? As you clearly put it, it's all on his "lap". Or do we hold the Republicans and Democrats equally responsible? And bare in mind, it was the Republicans who initially pushed for the project to go forward.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I am not interested in partisan politics, Obama has the power to stop it
if it is not in the nations best interest. Will he?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 



I am not interested in partisan politics,


and this is why you're trying to put all the blame on Obama when he can't do this without the consent of congress? And he isn't the only one that supports it?

Not interested in partisan politics you say?


Obama has the power to stop it


So does congress.

Obama supporters it, so do the Republicans (the Republicans more so as they pushed the original midwestern keystone project to go ahead), so stop trying to protect them.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Has Obama retired his veto pen?
When was the last time he used it?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Has Obama retired his veto pen?


You do know that congress can still override a veto right? You do know as well that many congressional representatives, most of whom are Republicans, have pushed for the keystone project. So it doesn't matter whether or not Obama could "veto" it.

Why are you trying to protect the Republicans again?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Not quite that simple to overide a presidential Veto,
it would take 2/3 majority, then must be sent to the other house,
again with 2/3 majority. Only then could it be undone.

Clearly, Obama is for the pipeline, and has no interest in stopping it,
yet is perfectly willing to let someone else take the blame.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Not quite that simple to overide a presidential Veto


It doesn't matter burntheships. If enough Republicans and Democrats oppose it, the veto can be overridden.

Fact: The Republicans overwhelmingly support the keystone pipeline, as do a good number of Democrats. There are also a good number of Democrats who oppose the keystone pipeline due to the views of their constituency, so a veto would be very possible if the Republicans really opposed it.


Clearly, Obama is for the pipeline, and has no interest in stopping it,


Neither do the Republicans.

You know I'd be sitting here agreeing with you on many things if your "bash Obama" agenda wasn't so readily apparent. This isn't really about whether or not the keystone pipeline gets put in place. The fact of the matter is that you would not be able to care less about all this if Obama was out of the picture.
edit on 3-3-2013 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


It doesn't matter burntheships. If enough Republicans and Democrats oppose it, the veto can be overridden.



Yes it does matter SG,

Is Obama so weak he would not use his Veto powers to try?

You can keep speculating, and divert to partisan antics,
it does nothing to obscure the facts....if Obama does not want
the Keystone Pipeline as a mark on his legacy, he could use his Veto powers.

edit on 3-3-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 



Is Obama so weak he would not use his Veto powers to try?


What kind of argument is this, considering that Obama does not oppose the southern portion of the keystone pipeline. You must be confused but my argument was never about whether or not Obama supported alternative routes to the keystone project, he has supported it for over a year now, hence my previous links.


You can keep speculating,


What's there to speculate? Congress can override a presidential veto? No? And what difference does it make anyway, the Republicans would overwhelmingly support the keystone project regardless of their ability to veto or not, so it makes this argument of yours a moot.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Well I am not too keen on the accuracy of your assumptions, but consider this:
Our last Presidents of late have all mentioned Reducing Our Dependence on Foreign Oil.
Historically, our alliances with The Crown and Canada would raise the consideration as that of
Partners rather than "Foreign".This Oil you speak of would not entirely be shipped to China.
However, this resource would certainly reduce American Foreign Debt.

Geopolitical Influence is reduced by Incurring Debt.
Reducing Debt RESTORES Geopolitical Influence.

The United States and its Dependable Allies around The Globe
seek to achieve Balance and Further the Human Rights Agenda.

This is not exactly a Near Term Profit Situation.
This is a Long Term Resolution.

So consider this for a moment if you would :

If Romney was elected, this situation would still exist.

S&F to you



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 


As always, thanks for your genuine comments,
and hats off to you too.


This may be a consideration....


And as for Romney, well it is a large possibility as one usually loses
integrity with the gain of power.
edit on 3-3-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Like wise Burntheships.
I have enjoyed your intelligence and comments for a few years now.
Best, Wildmanimal



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



And bare in mind, it was the Republicans who initially pushed for the project to go forward.

yes, assuming the oil would go to AMERICANS, not sold to china. this won't reduce our debt because obama will just end up increasing spending, instead of putting the money aside to lower our debt.

how do i know? his recent "spending cuts" plan featured a massive tax hike. it wasn't about cutting spending, it was about increasing government revenue.
edit on 4-3-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



yes, assuming the oil would go to AMERICANS, not sold to china.


Republicans did not support the keystone project under the condition that it be used solely for domestic consumption, they just supported the project unconditionally and claimed it would benefit americans and only americans.

Republicans voted against an amendment to the keystone bill which made it a condition that the oil remain for the benefit of Americans:


Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) offered an amendment to keep oil from the Keystone pipeline in the U.S. — echoing a failed amendment from a markup last week to keep natural gas tapped in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for domestic use.

Markey said his amendment is intended to prevent only refined petroleum products like gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel from being exported.


Read more: www.politico.com...
clerk.house.gov...



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by newcovenant
some environmental group said the statement and assessment put out by the State Department was nothing short of "malpractice."


It is, a total sellout of America.
Both sides, Dems too are backing this. Its truely disgusting!
business.financialpost.com...


It is a total sell out or do the energy companies own us already?
Look at fracking too. People don't want it but it is pushed on their neighbors with unheard of amounts of cash and pits one against the other. Totally unethical. Who is running who? Makes me wonder.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
damn
edit on 5-3-2013 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join